ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION APRIL 17, 2010

PART A Professional Practice and Ethics
This examination comes in two parts (Part A and Part B). Both parts must be completed in this
sitting. You will be given a total of 180 minutes to complete the examination.
Use the correct colour-coded Answer Book for each part, place in the correct envelope and seal after
completed.
White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.
Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper.
This is a CLOSED BOOK examination. No aids are permitted other than the excerpts from the 1990
Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code of Ethics) supplied at
the examination. Dictionaries are not permitted.
The marking of questions will be based not only on academic content, but also on legibility and the ability
to express yourself clearly and correctly in the English language. If you have any doubt about the meaning
of a question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the question.
All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part A. Each of the four questions is worth 25 marks.
WHERE A QUESTION ASKS IF A CERTAIN ACTION BY AN ENGINEER WAS ETHICAL OR
NOT, A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER IS NOT SUFFICIENT. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO
COMMENT ON AND DISCUSS THE ACTION OF THE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS AND/OR
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN EACH SITUATION.
You should identify where applicable the appropriate clauses in Regulation 941. SIMPLE REFERENCE
TO THE APPROPRIATE CLAUSES WITHOUT A DISCUSSION OF HOW THE CLAUSE
APPLIES IN THE SITUATION DESCRIBED IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 10

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION APRIL 17, 2010
PART A Professional Practice and Ethics
Question 1
(5)

(e)

Is a civil engineer allowed to perform services that are normally within the
scope of mechanical engineering? Explain

(5)

(f)

What licence holders can hold a Certificate of Authorization?

(5)

(g)

What is the purpose of the engineers seal and when should it be used?
What two elements are required to accompany the seal?

(5)

(h)

PEO issues Temporary licences. In addition to paying the necessary fee,

briefly state three other requirements to obtain such a licence.

(5)

(i)

PEO's Discipline Committee has the power to revoke or suspend any of the
licences issued by PEO if the licence holder commits professional
misconduct. Besides revocation and suspension, describe three (3) other
penalties or sanctions that the discipline committee may impose.

Question 2
ProTestCo is a products testing company. Typically, ProTestCo is hired by various
manufacturers to perform tests on their products in order to verify that the products are
manufactured according to published standards.
You are a professional engineer and have been employed for several years on a fulltime basis as an employee of ProTestCo. In your job, you are responsible for
supervising the application of tests on various products. During your years of
employment with ProTestCo you have acquired a great deal of expertise regarding the
design and manufacture of small household appliances and have earned an excellent
reputation. Given your reputation and expertise, manufacturers of such appliances are
often interested in hiring you on a private basis (i.e. outside of your employment with
ProTestCo) to provide input on their product designs. You are able to supplement your
income by occasionally undertaking such work for them. You perform this work on
weekends and during evenings.
One day, while at work at ProTestCo, you are assigned the job of supervising the tests
and issuing a report on a new product that has been submitted to ProTestCo. You
smile when you realize that the product was submitted by one of your own
manufacturing clients and that you provided design input on the product.
(10)

(a)

Comment on the appropriateness of how you have set up your working

arrangement.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 11

(10)

(b)

How should you deal with the testing of the new product?

(5)

(c)

Is a P.Eng. licence sufficient to permit you to provide such design input to your
own manufacturing clients? Explain.

Question 3
Local Environmental Solutions and Studies (LESS) was hired by Developer to conduct
a study on the contamination on a former industrial site that they had purchased and
wished to redevelop into residential properties. LESS held a Certificate of
Authorization and the responsible professional engineer, Member, worked part time for
LESS. Normally Member reviewed and signed all reports issued by LESS. LESS
prepared an engineering report and submitted it to Developer who then submitted it to
the Ministry of the Environment as part of Developers application for redevelopment.
The report prepared for Developer was not reviewed nor signed by Member.
Member was a well qualified P.Eng. in this field with over 15 years of experience and
was well recognized by the industry. His principle employer was aware of his
moonlighting activities and had approved them. LESS was also aware of the
moonlighting activities and the limitations that this placed on Member. LESS was a
well known environmental firm with over 20 years experience and employed 4
experienced technicians. LESS had no other professional engineers on staff who could
take the responsibility for the work. The work of their technicians was normally
directed and reviewed by Member.
The report submitted to Developer was found by the Ministry to contain some serious
errors and did not accurately identify the potential leaking of PCBs (a known cancer
causing material) into a nearby watercourse if the property was redeveloped. Currently
the levels of PCB are within the Ministrys allowable limits. These potential leakages
had been identified in a previous study that had been submitted to the Ministry by a
qualified engineering firm on behalf of the previous owner.
After the report was submitted to Developer, Member reviewed the report and found
those errors. He informed LESS of his findings but did not notify Developer or the
Ministry of the Environment. LESS also did not notify Developer or the Ministry of
the errors. Neither Member nor LESS attempted to remedy the report.
With respect to regulation 941 and the Professional Engineers Act
(10)

(a) Please discuss the conduct and responsibilities of LESS

(15)

(b) Please discuss the conduct and responsibilities of Member

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 12

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION APRIL 17, 2010
PART A Professional Practice and Ethics

Question 4
Omicron is a 50 year-old engineer who, along with family, recently immigrated to
Canada and took up residence in Newtown, Ontario. Soon after arriving in Ontario,
Omicron obtained a Provisional Licence from PEO. Unfortunately, despite that
designation and Omicrons 25 years of experience as a structural engineer outside
Canada, Omicron has had difficulty finding employment. In order to help support
Omicrons family while continuing to look for a full-time job, Omicron decides to take
on engineering assignments on a solo, freelance basis, working from home. Omicron
begins advertising in the classified section of Newtowns local newspaper and orders
several hundred business cards. The advertisement includes the statement, Dont
settle for poor quality and costly services of the big engineering firms in Newtown call Omicron to get the best for less! On the business cards, beside Omicrons name,
the term Prof. Eng. is used. The ads generate a great deal of interest and Omicron is
soon retained by several clients and begins to perform professional engineering
services on various small projects.
(6)

(a)

Comment on the suitability of the Provisional Licence under these

circumstances. If you are of the opinion that the Provisional Licence is not
suitable, what action might PEO take against Omicron?

(8)

(b)

What other document would Omicron need to obtain from PEO under these
circumstances? Does Omicron have the qualifications to obtain that document?
Comment on the possible consequences to Omicron of not having that
document.

(6)

(c)

Comment on Omicrons advertisement. Is it appropriate? If not, what action

might PEO take against Omicron as a result?

(5)

(d)

Comment on Omicrons business card. Is it appropriate? If not, what action

might PEO take against Omicron as a result?

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 13

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "A"
April 17, 2010
The objects of Part "A" are to examine a knowledge of PEO functions (question 1) and the application of
the Misconduct and Ethics Codes (questions 2, 3 and 4).
The Codes are contained in Regulation 941, sections 72. and 77. Although these 2 sections are supplied
at the exam, they should be carefully studied before the exam. This will facilitate recognition of
comparable situations within the questions, and an appropriate response to each situation.
Time can be a problem. To develop the skill of time management, try practice during study as follows:
1) Write an answer without time pressure, but with full details, making use of all study materials.
2) Set aside all materials, except the question sheets and sections 72. and 77.
3) Write the answer again, under time pressure of 20 minutes, giving priority to the important points.
4) Using 1), review and look for ways to improve 3), while still giving a complete and concise answer.
The references here are for study purposes and, except for 72. and 77., are not expected in an answer.
This study guide is extensive to illustrate the possible range of content in an answer.

1(a) Scope of practice - a P.Eng is allowed to perform services outside a first engineering degree,
providing specific study or experience have been undertaken, 77.1.iv., and the engineer is acting with
competence, 77.1.v. However, if incompetence is shown, then it is professional misconduct, 72.(2)(h), and
is open to a charge, 72.(2)(j). The judgement of competence rests with the individual P.Eng.
1(b) Certificate of Authorization (C of A) - support licence must be P.Eng or Temporary, Reg 941 / 47.1.
1(c) Engineer's seal - to identify the engineer responsible for preparing or checking documents. It is to be
used before issuing final documents, and to be accompanied by a signature and date, Reg 941 / 53.
1(d) Temporary licence requirement; one of the following:
1) membership in another province or territory association with objects similar to those of PEO, or
2) qualifications at least equal to those required for a P.Eng in Ontario, or
3) wide recognition and 10 years experience related to the work to be undertaken, Reg 941 / 43.,
and
4) collaboration with an Ontario P.Eng, unless exempted, Reg 941 / 44.
1(e) Discipline sanctions; besides (a) revocation or (b) suspension - any 3 from, PE Act section 28.(4) (c) limit professional work
(e)(iii) practice inspections
(h) impose a fine up to $5,000
(d) impose terms (a course) (e)(iv) require reports
(i) direct publication of orders
(e)(i) require supervision
(f) impose counselling
(j) impose costs
(e)(ii) be working not alone (g) revoke a designation
(k) suspend with a condition(s)
EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 14

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "A"
April 17, 2010
2(a) Moonlighting; appropriateness of working arrangement(s), I must 1) provide the outside client (OC) with a written statement of my employment at ProTestCo
2) provide the OC with the attendant limitations on my services
3) be satisfied my work at the OC will not conflict with my work at ProTestCo
4) inform ProTestCo of these work arrangements, Reg 941 / 77.5., and
5) hold a C of A, PE Act 12.(2), unless the OC already has a C of A under which I can be designated.
2(b) Testing of product; with my design input - to do this test would be in direct conflict of interest to my
duty to ProTestCo, 72.(2)(i), 77.3. and 77.4. I must recommend to ProTestCo that someone else, an
outside PEng if necessary, be responsible for this test. I could provide guidance but not sign-off, 77.1.i.
2(c) Providing design input; to my own manufacturing clients - a PEng licence is not sufficient. If providing
design input, I would be acting as an independent practitioner (i.e., providing services to the public) so in
addition to my PEng, I must also hold a C of A, PE Act 12.(2), Reg 941 / 47.
3(a) Local Environmental Solutions and Studies (LESS) LESS has responsibilities with respect to the PE
Act and Regulation 941, because LESS holds a C of A, PE Act 17.(1). The owner of LESS must ensure
Member PEng (MPE) is given responsibility for, and supervision of, professional engineering services
provided by LESS, including to review and sign reports. LESS prepared a report and submitted it to
Developer, which had not been reviewed by MPE. Therefore, LESS violated the PE Act section 12.(2),
about C of A's, and the requirement for PEng supervision, Reg 941 / 47.1. LESS is open to a charge under
PE Act section 12.(2) and a fine of $25,000 under PE Act section 40.
LESS is subject to the PE Act but not the codes. MPE is subject to the Act and the codes, 72. and 77.
3(b) Member PEng (MPE) responsibilities; after reviewing the report and finding errors, MPE must 1) impress on LESS the need for supervision for the C of A, PE Act section 17.(2)., Reg 941 / 47.1.
2) present clearly to LESS the consequences of a deviation in technical adequacy or process,
72.(2)(f).
3) attempt to remedy the report, by being a reasonable practitioner, and not being negligent,
72.(2)(a),
4) act with fairness and loyalty, by ensuring the Developer and the Ministry are fully informed, 77.1.i.
5) act with a duty to public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i.
6) when the report is corrected, sign, date and seal, and resubmit the report, Reg 941 / 53.
Not to correct or notify is misconduct and fails to make provision for the safeguarding of life, health or
property, 72.(2)(b). Further, it is a failure to comply with codes and regulations, 72.(2)(d). All of these
could lead to a charge against MPE, for acting in an unprofessional manner, 72.(2)(j).
4(a) Provisional licence (PL); suitability - a PL is not suitable under these circumstances. Omicron has
violated the conditions of the PL which are, to practice only under the supervision of a PEng, who also
signs, dates and seals documents, Reg 941 / 44.1(2)2. Omicron could contract with a PEng for the
necessary supervision (as is Question 3).
EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 15

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "A"
April 17, 2010
PEO might take action for misconduct, 72.(2)(k), or could cancel Omicron's PL, PE Act 28.(4)(a).
4(b) Professional engineering services; other document needed - is a C of A, PE Act 12.(2). Omicron
does not have the qualifications for a C of A, but Omicron could contract with a PEng to supervise
Omicron, and therefore would be able to hold a C of A (as in Question 3 above) Reg 941 / 44.1(2)2.
Without a C of A, the consequence is a fine for a first offence, of not more than $10,000, PE Act 40.(3).
4(c) Advertisement - is not appropriate since it contains indirect criticism of others. This is a breach of Reg
941 / 75.(c), and is misconduct. It is also injury to the reputation of another, 77.7.iii., but this is not
misconduct, 72.(2)(g). PEO might take action, which could be to cancel Omicron's PL, PE Act 28.(4)(a).
4(d) Business card - is not appropriate since it is not factual, by implying that "Prof. Eng." means PEng.
This is a breach of Reg 941 / 75.(b) and PE Act 40.(2), and is professional misconduct, 72.(2)(g).
PEO might take action, which could be to cancel Omicron's PL, PE Act 28.(4).

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 16

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION April 17, 2010

PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability

This examination comes in two parts (Part A and Part B). Both parts must be completed
in this sitting. You will be given a total of 180 minutes to complete the examination.
Use the correct colour-coded Answer Book for each part, place in the correct envelope and seal
after completed.
White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.
Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper.
This is a CLOSED BOOK examination. No aids are permitted other than the excerpts from
the 1990 Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code
of Ethics) supplied at the examination. Dictionaries are not permitted.
The marking of questions will be based not only on academic content, but also on legibility and
the ability to express yourself clearly and correctly in the English language. If you have any
doubt about the meaning of a question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the
question.
All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part B. Each of the four questions is worth
25 marks.

EIT SEMINAR FEBRUARY 2011

Page 11

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION April 17, 2010
PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability

1.

Briefly define, explain or answer any five of the following:

(i)
(ii)

Contract A in tendering
Five examples of employment rights to which individuals are entitled under Ontarios
Human Rights Code (list only).
(iii)
Dispute resolution board
(iv)
The New York Convention
(v)
Statutory holdback applicable to construction
(vi)
Parol evidence rule
(vii)
Secret commission
(viii)
The discoverability concept as it relates to limitation periods.

2. A joint venture consisting of both engineering and contracting firms entered into a contract with
an Ontario city to design and build an all-electronic toll highway expressway featuring both
underground tunnel portions and surface portions of the highway. The contract also required the
joint venture to design, install and implement an electronic tolling system to accommodate specified
numbers of vehicles, all as specified in the request for proposal for the design and construction of
the all electronic expressway, as published by the city.
The contract between the city and the joint venture provided that the all-electronic highway
expressway was to be fully operational by a specified date, failing which the joint venture
contractor would be responsible to pay to the city liquidated damages (based on lost total revenues
in accordance with the projects feasibility study and financial plan) of $300,000 for each day
beyond the specified completion date until the expressway and its all electronic tolling technology
was finally installed and fully operational. The contract also included a provision limiting the
contractor's liability for liquidated damages under the contract to the maximum amount of $30
million.
With the city's approval, the joint venture contractor then subcontracted, to a firm specializing in
tolling technology, the obligations to design, install and implement the tolling technology system as
required by the city's specifications. The subcontract contained a provision obligating the tolling
technology subcontractor to be responsible to the joint venture contractor to provide a fully
operational tolling system by the same specified date and for the same $300,000 of daily

12

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION April 17, 2010
PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability

liquidated damages (subject to the same maximum amount of $30 million in liquidated damages as
set out in the joint venture contract between the joint venture contractor and the city).
Although the expressway was otherwise operational by the specified completion date, the tolling
technology subcontractor experienced difficulties in completing the installation and implementation
of the tolling technology in accordance with the requirements of the subcontract. In fact, the tolling
technology subcontractor was 120 days late in successfully completing the design, installation and
implementation of the tolling technology system as required by the subcontract (and the Contract).
Explain and discuss what claim the joint venture contractor could make against the tolling technology
subcontractor in the circumstances. In answering, explain the approach taken by Canadian courts with
respect to contracts that limit liability and include a brief summary of the development of relevant case
precedents.

3. An information technology firm assigned to one of its junior employee engineers the task of developing
special software for application on major bridge designs. The employee engineer had recently become a
professional engineer and was chosen for the task because of the engineers background in both the
construction and the software engineering industries.
The firms bridge software package was purchased and used by a structural engineering design firm
on a major bridge design project on which it had been engaged by contract with a municipal government.
Unfortunately, the bridge collapsed in less than one year after completion of construction.
Motorists were killed and injured.
The resulting investigation into the cause of the collapse concluded that the design of the bridge was
defective and that the software implemented as part of the design did not address all of the parameters
involved in the scope of this particular bridge design. The investigators concluded that although the design
software would suffice for certain types of structures it was not appropriate in the circumstances of the
particular subsurface conditions and length of span required for this particular application. The
investigators report also indicated that the design software package was not sufficiently explicit in

13

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION April 17, 2010
PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability

warning users of the software of the scope of the design parameters addressed by the software. The
investigators report also stated that even an experienced user of the software might reasonably assume that
the software would be appropriate for application on this particular project and that too little attention had
been paid to ensuring that adequate warnings had been provided to software users of the limitations on the
application of the software.
What potential liabilities in tort law arise in this case? In your answer, explain what principles of
tort law are relevant and how each applies to the case. Indicate a likely outcome to the matter.

4. An Ontario pulp and paper company (Paperco) entered into a written equipment supply contract with a
manufacturer of heat exchange and turbine equipment (Manuco). According to the agreement, Manuco
was to design, manufacture and deliver high heat recovery steam generator for Papercos pulp and paper
mill in Ontario for a purchase price of $7.5 million. Paperco would arrange to install the equipment in its
mill as part of a cogeneration system for the purpose of converting steam into electricity.
According to the agreement, Manuco was to begin manufacturing the equipment on February 1, 2009 and
deliver the finished product to Paperco on or before March 30, 2010. The agreement provided that
Paperco. would pay the $7.5 million purchase price in monthly instalments over the manufacturing period.
The agreement contained the following provision:
Each instalment of the purchase price shall become due and payable by Paperco on the last
day of the month for which the instalment is to be made. If Paperco fails to pay any instalment
within 10 days after such instalment becomes due, Manuco shall be entitled to stop performing its
work under this contract or terminate this contract.
As the work progressed, Manuco invoiced Paperco for each monthly instalment. Although Paperco paid
the first instalment on time, it was more than 20 days late in paying each of the second third fourth fifth and
sixth instalments. Manuco never once complained about the late payments, even when Paperco apologized
for the delayed

14

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION April 17, 2010
PART B - Engineering Law and Professional Liability

payments and commented in meetings with Manuco that Paperco's current cash flow difficulties were the
reason for the late payments. Manuco even commented at three separate meetings, in response to Paperco's
acknowledgment of its cash flow difficulties, that it understood that Paperco had cash flow problems and
that Manuco was prepared to wait for the late payments provided the payments weren't more than 30 days
late.
By the middle of September 2009, it became apparent to Manuco that due to serious cost overruns resulting
from its own design errors and lack of productivity, it would stand to lose a substantial amount of money
on the contract by the time the equipment would be completed. Although the instalment for August had
been invoiced and was due on August 31, 2009, Paperco had not paid it by September 15, 2009. On
September 15, 2009, Manuco terminated the contract.
Was Manuco entitled to terminate the contract? Identify the contract law principles that each of Paperco
and Manuco may argue should apply and explain the basis of the principles and how they should apply.

15

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "B"
April 17, 2010
The object of Part "B" is to examine an elementary understanding of law, as this may apply in an
engineers work experience.
Question 1. is for definitions, and needs only 5 answers from the 8 options.
Questions 2., 3. and 4. are case studies. Each case study must include names of the relevant legal terms
and principles, and how each term or principle applies to one or more elements of the case. The value of
case studies is not from 3 answers in total, but from the extent of content within each answer.
Page references below are for the Marston text, 4th edition, and are given here for study purposes. In the
case of any perceived ambiguity, the text should be taken as authoritative.

1.(i) Contract A in tendering - is a contract formed when a bid is submitted. There are as many Contract
A's as there are bidders. Contract B is one signed agreement with one bidder, page 121.
1.(ii) Employment rights, equal treatment - without discrimination regardless of (list only 5 of the14 given
here) race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed / religion, sex, sexual
orientation, age, marital status, family status, record of offences, or handicap, page 322.
1.(iii) Dispute resolution board - or dispute review board (DRB) - as disputes arise, a DRB tries to resolve
them, to avoid major claims and arbitration, or litigation (in court) at project completion. A DRB is
composed of neutral 3rd parties (usually 3 of) selected prior to project start, by the owner and contractor. A
DRB is less formal and more effective in the use of time, than arbitration or legal procedures, page 31.
1.(iv) New York Convention - agreement under United Nations auspices, signed in 1958 by over 135
countries including Canada, that arbitration decisions will be enforced by the country of a signing nation.
International contracts should be with those parties, who are from among the signing nations, page 30.
1.(v) Statutory holdback - a % of contract price, held back by an owner until lien periods expire, to cover
any outstanding liens against a project, by sub-contractors or others. Subject begins on page 249.
1.(vi) Parol evidence rule - in general, verbal agreements are not part of a contract. However, if it can be
substantiated that an agreed-upon condition must be precedent for a contract to be formed, then verbal
evidence of that required condition may be admitted, page 136.

16

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "B"
April 17, 2010
1.(vii) Secret commission - a payment, promise, bribe or kickback, offered by a person who is not a party
to a contract, to influence the actions of a person who is a party to a contract. The purpose is to secretly
defraud the interests of the other party to a contract. A secret commission is a violation of the Criminal
Code of Canada, section 426. Marston text reference pages 179, 180.
1. (viii) Discoverability concept - applies to the 2 year limitation period. When damage or loss as a cause
for legal action is discovered, or ought reasonably to have been discovered, this is the point in time when
a 2 year limitation period begins, and within which a legal action must be filed, ref. page 71.
2. Fundamental breach, claims enforceability - this is a case of "fundamental breach doctrine", a breach
going to the root of a contract. Historically, a clause to limit liability is not enforceable. However, if the
intent of the parties as expressed or constructed in the clause, is clear and true, and the liquidated
damage provisions are supported in detail by a genuine pre-estimate of the costs of a possible breach,
then the legal principle of "true construction approach" is said to have taken place. Canadian courts will
usually judge that the clause to limit liability is enforceable, therefore the law has changed in this area.
For the case of fundamental breach, the joint venture contractor (JVC) could make a claim against the
tolling technology sub-contractor (TTS) for $300,000 x 120 days = $36 million. The $300,000 per day is
based on lost total revenues in accordance with the project's feasibility study and financial plan.
The provision limiting the contractors liability to $30 million, would be enforceable, only if it were clearly
based on a genuine pre-estimate of the costs of a breach.
Relevant case precedents are Harbutt's Plasticene vs. Wayne Tank and Pump where the clause was not
enforceable, and Hunter Engineering vs. Syncrude where it was, pages 155, 159.
3. The relevant principles of tort law are:
1) a duty of care
2) a breach of that duty, and
3) resulting damage or loss.
This is a tort case because there was no contract between a municipal government (AMG) and the
information technology firm (ITF). A tort action is intended to compensate an aggrieved party(s) as far as
it is possible to do so with money.
AMG will claim that ITF, as verified by the resulting (expert) investigation:
1) did not give adequate care or warnings about the limitations and scope of software parameters,
2) the bridge collapsed thus breaching a duty of care, traced back to the unsatisfactory software,
3) motorists were killed and injured, so there was resulting damage and loss.
17

Professional Practice Examination

Study Guide - Part "B"
April 17, 2010
The potential liabilities that arise are to the structural engineering design firm (SEF) and to the ITF. The
liability funds would be used to compensate the injured, families of the deceased, and rebuild the bridge.
A likely outcome is, the liabilities to SEF would be about 40 %, and to ITF would be about 60%.
SEF and ITF would be concurrent tortfeasors.
The ITF would be vicariously liable for the actions of its junior engineer.
A similar case precedent is Unit Farm Concrete vs. Eckerlea Acres, page 46.
Although persons awarded PEng have met certain minimum qualifications, a junior engineer's work should
have had at least a brief review by a seasoned engineering designer or manager at SEF. Also, even the
construction contractor may have noticed deficiencies compared to other similar bridges.
4. Contract termination - Manuco was not entitled to terminate the contract. A gratuitous promise was
effectively made, that Manuco was prepared to wait for late payments. This promise was not in writing
and was without consideration, but Paperco was clearly depending on the promise.
Manuco was going to lose money and was trying to get out of the contract. If Manuco insists on a strict
interpretation of the contract, Paperco could invoke an exceptional remedy, which is the principle of
equitable estoppel. This remedy would prevent termination of the contract. If termination were to
proceed, the result would be inequitable. A case precedent is Conwest Exploration vs. Letain, page 92.

18